University Times

Faculty Assembly last week endorsed a policy change in the Faculty Handbook to add at a school’s discretion “community service” as a weighted factor in promotion and tenure decisions.

At the April 4 Assembly, Andrew Blair, vice provost for Faculty Affairs, reported that Provost James Maher had approved the change, which was recommended by the Senate community relations committee (CRC) and endorsed by Faculty Assembly in February.

The handbook change reads “Public service (including community service as relevant) and professional service [are] included in the evaluation process for promotion and tenure. The weight given to these activities varies with academic discipline and it shall be defined clearly by each school.” (The text is excerpted from page 75 of the online PDF version of the handbook.)

“There is at least one other reference to service in the handbook, and that’s in the mission statement,” Blair said. “But the change was made in this section where evaluation criteria are addressed.”

The suggested language recommended by Assembly was to use the term “community engagement,” Blair noted. “But that term is not that well understood. For us the term ‘community service’ is more commonly understood,” he said.

The notice of the change will be forwarded to the dean’s council, Blair added.

University Senate President John Baker praised the efforts of the CRC in developing the proposal, particularly Assembly member Tracy Soska of social work, who was the principal author of the recommendation.

“We all agree that this is a positive step,” and shows that the administration is listening to Assembly’s recommendations, said Baker.

Assembly also discussed what could be done to improve attendance at monthly meetings, and heard reports on Pitt’s catering services and on an outside car-rental firm.

In response to low attendance at recent Assembly meetings, the Senate officers solicited suggestions for improving the number of members who attend.

Assembly has 61 elected members. Average attendance at Assembly meetings has been 27, according to the meeting minutes.

“My personal feeling,” Baker said, “is that attendance is sometimes low at meetings because faculty are preoccupied with their own professional work, and will skip an occasional Senate meeting when there are no pressing issues to discuss.”

Faculty also have schedule conflicts that preclude their attendance, he noted. “[Low attendance] more likely reflects that Senate business is going well, and the fact that Pitt’s administration is willing to work with faculty to solve issues that arise,” Baker said.

Suggestions made for improving attendance included:

• Strictly enforcing a Senate bylaw that stipulates forfeiture of Assembly membership for missing three straight meetings without notifying the Senate president or the Senate office.

• Listing absent Assembly members in the monthly meeting minutes. Currently, the minutes include only attendees.

• Inviting more guest speakers to stimulate interest in attending;

• Holding school-specific town hall meetings to solicit ideas and discuss issues that could then be brought to Faculty Assembly.

Assembly members agreed that the “three-meeting” rule be enforced and voted to expand the minutes to include those who did not attend and those absentees who were excused by notifying the Senate, in addition to names of attendees.

A related suggestion made at the April 4 meeting was to broadcast the Faculty Assembly and Senate Council monthly meetings to the regional campuses. Regional campuses have two representatives each on Faculty Assembly, but the meetings also are open to the non-voting public.

Senate office director Lori Molinaro said that 2700 Posvar Hall, where Faculty Assembly and Senate Council hold meetings, is equipped with the technology necessary to provide an audio/video transmission to the regional campuses.

She said she would investigate costs and permission procedures and report to the Senate officers.

Senate executive committee member Irene Frieze reported that the Senate officers had met with Pitt and food services officials in response to concerns about the high cost of the catering services provided by Sodexho, Pitt’s contracted food service organization.

The officers met with Eli Shorak, associate vice chancellor; Jim Earle, director of Housing and Food Services, and Jodi Ludovici, director of Sodexho.

Sodexho offers a tiered pricing schedule, Frieze reported, that ranges:

• For receptions, from $2 per person for punch, cookies and paper products to $18 per person for hot and cold hors d’oeuvres, desserts, beverages, linen, china and wait staff;

• For lunches, from $6 per person for box lunches to $19 per person for a hot buffet lunch with three entrees, three side dishes, rolls, butter, assorted desserts, beverages, linen, china and wait staff;

• For full dinners, from $14 to $20 per person.

Housing and Food Services, Frieze noted, is a service provided to the University community, not a profit center. “Sodexho reviews its prices every year, and they work to keep the prices competitive with other local catering organizations,” she said.

On-campus events are required to use Sodexho’s services, except in limited circumstances, Frieze said. Small meetings or informal gatherings, for example, where pizza or sandwiches are delivered but not served by vendors, are permitted when an exemption is approved by Food Services.

Units also may request an exemption to use outside food providers when the food services requested are not ones normally provided by Sodexho, such as preparing certain ethnic foods, Frieze pointed out.

Assembly members offered appraisals, some positive, some negative, based on their own experiences with Pitt’s catering services.

• One member said that the food services personnel were friendly, helpful and professional.

• Another said that she believed the prices were comparatively reasonable, but the quality sometimes is lacking. “It’s not the cost of the box lunch, it’s what you get in the box lunch,” she said.

• One member cited a particularly negative experience: When his school was undergoing its accreditation process with visiting evaluators, the food service did not show up for the scheduled lunch.

Another member added that he had a similar experience. “There are issues of reliability,” he said.

• A member said that costs appeared high “on the low end. If you have a hundred people, you can do much better than punch and cookies for $200,” referring to the $2 per person Sodexho charge.

Frieze agreed to pass on these comments to appropriate officials. She said that cost comparisons should include consideration that Sodexho’s services include set-up, serving staff and clean-up, services not always provided by commercial catering organizations.

“There also are issues of safety,” such as when a hot meal requires a flame to keep warm, Frieze reported.

“Sodexho would be happy to meet with interested faculty and staff to discuss concerns about food services and the options available to the University community,” she said. The food service organization wants to meet the needs of the Pitt community and develop a menu that fits a unit’s budget, she added.

In other Faculty Assembly developments:

• Assembly heard a report on Flexcar, a Seattle-based car rental service supported by the Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership. Linda Hartman, a faculty representative on Pitt’s transportation committee, said the company wants to get a foothold in Pittsburgh and approached the University about joining as a charter member. The University has made no official response, she said.

(For more information on Flexcar, see April 19 University Times.)

• Assembly has invited Joe Fink of Facilities Management to report on sustainability issues at Pitt at the May 1 meeting. Assembly also will invite G. Alec Stewart, dean of the University Honors College, to report on the college’s programs and initiatives.

—Peter Hart