University Times

Is it time for another comprehensive review of the University Planning and Budgeting System?

The system, now in its 10th year, is intended to involve faculty and staff in developing budgets and long-range plans for their schools (and, in some schools, large departments) through unit-level planning and budgeting committees (PBCs).

The system's bylaws mandated an initial, five-year review in 1996 by the University Senate's budget policies committee. That review found that some PBCs weren't meeting regularly or distributing meeting minutes, as they were supposed to do. But overall, the review concluded that the system was achieving its goal of giving faculty and staff unprecedented access to fiscal data and input into their schools' budgets and planning.

University Senate budget policies committee chairperson Phil Wion said his committee probably will recommend another in-depth review of the system this year.

"Out of this second review might very well come proposals for modification of the process," he told Faculty Assembly on Sept. 4.

Wion's committee is responsible for monitoring the University Planning and Budgeting System. Each year, the committee invites faculty and staff to voice concerns and complaints.

"It's been fairly quiet on that front," Wion said. "At least, we haven't heard much from faculty and staff in the last few years, which leads us to wonder if the relative quiet means that, generally, people are satisfied with the way the system is working or perhaps that people feel hopeless, that there's no point in fretting much about a system that doesn't seem to be working in some parts of the University."

University Senate President James Cassing asked Wion's committee to study the issue further and report back to Faculty Assembly.

Wion's comments came during an Assembly report on issues that Senate committees plan to tackle this year. According to Cassing, those issues include the following, among others:

* As the University raises its admissions standards, the Senate's admissions and financial aid committee wants to ensure that disadvantaged students, as well as University employees and their spouses and children, retain access to Pitt academic programs.

* The educational policies committee hopes to report next winter on the results of its current survey of part-time faculty members' needs and concerns.

* The benefits and welfare committee wants to make more health benefits information available to employees via the Internet.

* Bylaws and procedures is finalizing proposed guidelines for senior administrator search committees. Pitt has guidelines describing how faculty, staff and students should be represented on search committees for deans and some lower-level administrators, but not for search committees for top University officials.

* The community relations committee is developing a database of Pitt public service activities.

* Computer usage is drafting a new policy for redistributing and disposing of surplus computers, in addition to working with the Computing Services and Systems Development office to see that CSSD supports faculty in developing web pages.

* The student affairs committee is studying other universities' policies on changing students' grades (such as when a student appeals a lower grade), in preparation for presenting a report on that issue at Pitt.

— Bruce Steele