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

October 1, 2009

Resolution expected on regional peer group issue

The long-debated issue of which institutions should be included as peers for comparing faculty salaries at Pitt’s Bradford, Greensburg and Johnstown campuses could soon be resolved, Robert F. Pack, vice provost for academic planning and resources management, told Senate budget policies committee members at BPC’s Sept. 18 meeting.

Pack said that he expected to have recommendations from the three campus presidents in hand soon and that he anticipated a resolution “within a week or so.”

Debate has continued for years as various lists of peer institutions have been proposed by different faculty groups to benchmark faculty pay at the three campuses. (See Feb. 19 University Times.)

Currently, faculty pay on the three campuses is compared with branch campuses at 18 Association of American Universities public institutions. (Pitt-Titusville, which is primarily a two-year school, is considered separately for comparison purposes.)

The Provost’s office has maintained that the three campuses must agree on a single list and that any peer group proposal be endorsed by all three campus presidents as a prerequisite for consideration.

Pack told BPC, “We deal with presidents, the presidents are the ones that report to the provost. Faculty report to the presidents.”

In other business, unfinished issues from the 2008-09 academic year dominated BPC’s first meeting of the fall term.

• BPC directed new committee chair John J. Baker to ask the University planning and budgeting committee (UPBC) about the future of Pitt’s attribution study and to request it or some other document containing similar financial information. Baker agreed to send a written request to the committee.

He noted that the study is not on UPBC’s October meeting agenda and UPBC’s next meeting is not until February. “If it’s to be brought up, we can ask that it be put on the agenda,” Baker said.

Chaired by the provost, UPBC is an advisory body composed of administrators, faculty, staff and students. Its meetings are not public.

The report, prepared by the Office of Budget and Controller as a tool for UPBC, attributes annual revenues and expenses to each of the University’s responsibility centers.

After reviewing a draft of the most recent (fiscal year 2007) report in executive session in May 2008, BPC asked for the release of the document in order to facilitate discussion in open session. After initially indicating that the final document would be released, administrators balked. The Senate committee has continued its requests for more than a year to no avail.

The study was discussed at UPBC’s Feb. 19 meeting, during which the usefulness of the report was brought into question, according to a statement to BPC in February from Pack. (See March 5 University Times.) UPBC has not requested a report for fiscal year 2008, Pack said.

Pack noted the report was developed solely as a tool for the use of UPBC and that it does not factor into the allocation of resources to individual units.

Administrators also argue that the document is time-consuming to produce, with Arthur G. Ramicone, vice chancellor for Budget and Controller, estimating it takes some 300 hours of staff time to prepare.

In spite of the apparent stalemate, BPC has continued to request the report, or a similar document, in the interest of transparency.

BPC co-secretary Phil Wion said, “It would be one less means of assuring ourselves in the committee that indeed the place is continuing to be run prudently and responsibly.”

Baker added, “I really don’t see that much in the attribution study that’s negative. I understand it’s a lot of work to do.”

Should the report remain unavailable, Baker said BPC could compile similar revenue and expense information itself by combining information found in the University’s annual Fact Book with the detailed financial reports Pitt must file with the state Department of Education (available online at www.pdehighered.state.pa.us/higher/cwp/view.asp?Q=148550&A=6).

“It’s not going to duplicate the attribution study because the attribution study attributes costs for the units that are not producing revenue. But what you can do is figure out what revenue is coming into each responsibility center and what the expenses are. It’s all public information,” Baker said.

BPC pro tem committee member Sean Hughes noted it would be a complicated process to compile such information, adding that he found the attribution study useful and wanted it to continue to be available.

Committee member Stephen Carr argued against the idea of BPC constructing its own report. “It should be an official document,” he said, adding that he would accept an alternative document that would provide similar financial information.

Pack told BPC, “It is a document by and for the University planning and budgeting committee and that is the group that will determine whether it will continue or not.”

• Baker reported that the Senate tenure and academic freedom committee continues to investigate the issue raised by School of Medicine faculty members who were given unsatisfactory performance evaluations because a certain percentage of their salary wasn’t on a funded grant. (See June 25 University Times.)

Baker said the committee works in a confidential manner. “We can’t reveal the process until it’s over,” he said, reiterating that the issue isn’t a matter for BPC unless that TAFC investigation reveals a policy issue that must be addressed.

• BPC revisited the issue of requesting a breakout of faculty salary by gender in the University’s annual faculty salary report. (See June 11 University Times.)

Carr said, “I’m all in favor of having as much information as we want. The problem, frankly, is that incorrect inferences could be drawn from a simple presentation of the data. I’m not 100 percent sure it’s a good idea,” he said, adding, “This might be something that would be better raised through [the Provost’s Advisory Committee on Women’s Concerns] than BPC.

Baker noted that presenting the data in a simple table could be misleading, “because it doesn’t tell the whole story.”

Following the meeting, Baker clarified his statement. “If all you see is the average salary for male and female faculty, the reasons for the difference are not apparent from the figures alone. Some people jump to the conclusion that the reason for the salary differences between men and women is discrimination, but that is not usually the case.”

He added, “The reasons are complex and include such things as some professions pay more than others, for example engineering, and there are fewer women in those fields. Also, researchers who are well funded with grants tend to have higher salaries than faculty who strictly teach (male or female), and there tend to be more women in fields oriented more toward teaching instead of research.”

In addition, “women usually accept more home and child care responsibilities than men, so it is harder for them to compete in the higher paying professions which are usually very research intensive.”

—Kimberly K. Barlow

Filed under: Feature,Volume 42 Issue 3

Leave a Reply