University Times

In late August, the chancellor-appointed University Capital Planning Committee released a draft of its 10-year plan for Pittsburgh campus construction and renovations.

Provost James Maher, who chaired the committee, asked various faculty, staff and student groups for their reactions to the plan.

Maher will get plenty of responses from at least one organization, the University Senate.

At its Oct. 1 meeting, the Senate's Faculty Assembly approved two motions — one urging the capital planning committee to include improvements to Pitt's arts departments in the plan, the other underlining the plan's stipulations that no University educational and general (E&G) budget funds should be spent on Pitt Stadium renovations or on the proposed convocation center/basketball arena. (See story beginning on page 1.) Also at the Oct. 1 meeting, University Senate President Keith McDuffie summarized written responses to the plan from 10 Senate committees. McDuffie is scheduled to repeat his report at the Oct. 14 meeting of Senate Council, which (unlike the faculty-only Assembly) is attended by Pitt senior administrators.

The capital planning report also will be the main agenda item at the Oct. 16 meeting of the full University Senate. Robert F. Pack, vice provost for Academic Planning and Resources Management and a member of the capital planning committee, is scheduled to report on the plan and field faculty members' questions and comments.

In their written responses, the Senate committees generally applauded the capital improvements proposal. A few grumbled that such a comprehensive and detailed long-range plan was long overdue at Pitt.

Most committees praised the plan's emphases on improving libraries, classrooms and student housing and recreation facilities, but some committees expressed concern that Pitt won't be able to find the $361 million needed to complete the plan, or that funding all of those projects will drive the University too far into debt.

The admissions and student aid committee said it feared that debt recovery within Pitt's educational and general budget may come at the expense of salaries or academic operating budgets. While the committee endorsed the plan, it criticized the document for not addressing the issue of parking for the Masonic Temple. Under the plan, the Temple would house seven administrative and academic units, including the Office of Admissions and Financial Aid. The committee also criticized the document for failing to allocate space for minority student services, cultural centers and women's studies centers. "High visibility of these organizations would help attract prospective students and increase enrollment," the committee wrote.

The athletic committee likewise endorsed the plan as a whole, but said Pitt should begin construction of the proposed $52 million convocation center/basketball arena soon or scrap the project. "The longer the situation drags on, the less the chance it will ever come to be," the committee wrote, pointing out that urgently needed renovations of Trees Hall and Fitzgerald Field House depend on completion of the convocation center.

The capital improvements plan puts heavy emphasis on improved exercise facilities for students. According to the benefits and welfare committee, faculty and staff also should have access to such facilities. The committee recommended creating an employee wellness program in Bellefield Hall, similar to the current wellness program in Trees Hall.

The budget policies committee wrote the most detailed response to the plan, which it called "a careful, reasonable, well-thought-out approach to a very complex set of problems and possibilities." But the committee detailed 10 questions and criticisms of the plan, including the following:

* The document should explain why it does not include buildings owned by Pitt but operated by the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Division. "Does the UPMCD also have a long-range capital plan?" the committee asked. "If so, what are its main features and priorities? If not, why not?" * Budget policies endorsed the plan's recommendation not to construct a building for the College of Business Administration, but instead to house CBA's programs in Mervis Hall and the planned Multi-Purpose Academic Center. But the budget policies committee noted that "while space for the CBA was originally to be funded entirely through gifts, that assumption — or requirement — has silently been dropped in the report. We urge that some statement be included referring to an intention by the University to raise through gifts as much of the funding for the CBA portion of the MPAC building as possible."

* The committee expressed particular concern with the capital plan's impact on Pitt's educational and general budget, which budget policies said is "already under considerable stress." Budget policies said the plan "should give some attention to the question of whether increases in annual E&G capital costs of the magnitude required by the plan (ultimately, additional annual debt service of $15.5 million and operating costs of $4.9 million, in 1996 dollars) are realistic and achievable without adverse effects on the quality and scope of the University's programs — that is, whether such added E&G capital costs are consistent with all the assumptions and guiding principles driving the plan itself and with other, non-capital aspects of the University's long-range plans." The bylaws and procedures committee wrote that faculty appeared to be under-represented on the University Capital Planning Committee (UCDC). Only one faculty member (Thomas Anderson, of geology and planetary sciences) served on the UCPC, which also included 14 administrators — although six of the 14 were academic administrators with faculty appointments, the bylaws and procedures committee noted.

The bylaws and procedures committee also questioned whether faculty had sufficient time and opportunity to review the UCPC document. "The Deans Council was asked to obtain input from appropriate faculty committees of their units in mid-summer, a time when many faculty members are engaged elsewhere," the committee wrote. "The Senate was asked to review the report during September, a time when committees are reorganizing and classes are beginning." The commonwealth relations committee concluded that "almost everything in the plan is worthy" but criticized the plan for being overly ambitious. "It reads more like a 'wish list,'" the committee wrote. Committee members also questioned whether the convocation center should really be a high-priority project, and requested more details on its location and function. Among its other comments, the committee strongly supported the plan's emphasis on additional library and archival space, but wrote, "It seems like too many offices and functions are being scheduled for the [Masonic] Temple." The educational policies committee said the plan is "comprehensive and included ideas that we felt were very important for student life." But educational policies recommended speeding up the plan's timetable for renovating classrooms, and wrote: "We feel it is imperative that there be ongoing funding in the document for continual upgrading and also maintenance of the equipment that is placed in the classrooms…It is important that the equipment not only be maintained, but also replaced in the event of theft or breakage." Educational policies urged the capital planning committee to include more details on classroom renovations. "When classroom renovations are planned, the number of electrical sockets that are available in the classroom, the number of left-handed desks, and the number of foot candles [of lighting] that are necessary for each of these rooms should be carefully considered. Classroom enhancement ideas should be gathered not only from committees within the University, but also from the faculty who actually teach in the room," educational policies wrote.

The capital plan calls for $52.5 million worth of additions and renovations to Hillman Library. Not surprisingly, the Senate's library committee commended the plan. "In particular, we were pleased to see the emphasis on academic and student needs and the use of existing University facilities rather than merely building new buildings without much thought to future consequences," the library committee wrote.

But the committee added: "In regard to classroom renovation, there was a worry that 10 years is a fairly long time and a hope expressed that this timetable might be advanced." Before any classroom is declared to be renovated, it should be checked to make sure all equipment is present and functional, the committee stated.

The student affairs committee "enthusiastically" endorsed the capital plan, but said it hoped that Pitt, in building new dorms, will consider other factors besides cost-per-bed ratios. Future housing facilities should be built in areas perceived to be safe, for example, and should include sufficient recreational and lounge space, committee members wrote.

"Consideration should also be given to the development of non-athletic recreation facilities" such as a non-alcoholic pub and a concert hall in the proposed convocation center, the student affairs committee stated.

University Press committee chairperson Edward K. Muller noted that the Press plans to move soon from Ruskin Hall to rental space at 3347 Forbes Ave. He called the move "a temporary solution" to the Press's space needs. "A rental agreement always leaves the Press vulnerable to the whims of the owner, who (for example) might sell the building.

"The [capital plan] report does state that the University wishes to move away from off-campus rental agreements. It does not mention the Press in either its mid-term or long-term plans. I believe that a more permanent solution ought to be considered by the [capital planning] committee and included in the final report," Muller wrote.

— Bruce Steele