By SUSAN JONES
Unit-level planning and budgeting committees have been getting more attention under Pitt’s new budget model, and an annual survey of those committees’ members this year got more responses than in previous years.
Thurman Wingrove, Pitt’s controller, told the Senate Budget Policies committee that nearly 50 percent of the 297 people surveyed responded. In the past, the rate has been closer to 30 percent.
“I think there’s been so much more emphasis put on PBCs the past six or eight months, and we did have those orientation sessions back in October, November,” Wingrove said. “And I do think that just made people much more aware of the process and probably did contribute to the increased response rate on the survey.”
The new budget model, which has been running parallel to the original model for the 2022-23 fiscal year, puts more control in the hands of the revenue-generating responsibility centers, like the schools.
The survey went out earlier this year to people who were on the committees that helped form the 2022-23 budgets. The responses are broken down by each responsibility center.
The questions are largely the same as they have been in the past, but Wingrove said there was one addition: “How would you rate the impact of your PBC in the planning and budgeting process of your unit, i.e., to what extent did the PBC contribute to the process?”
“How would you rate the impact of your PBC in the planning and budgeting process of your unit, i.e., to what extent did the PBC contribute to the process?”
The effectiveness and involvement of PBCs has long been a concern of the Budget Policies committee and Faculty Assembly. Last year, Faculty Assembly passed a series of resolutions aimed at strengthening the unit-level PBCs.
Overall, the current survey found 26 percent rated their PBCs impact as high; 38 percent as moderate; 21 percent, low; and 13 percent, none.
Other statistics from the survey (numbers don’t add up to 100 percent because some people didn’t respond to the question):
Breakdown by role at Pitt: 23 percent, administration; 41 percent, faculty; 34 percent, staff and 2 percent, students
How many times did your PBC meet: 66 percent, one-five times; 21 percent, six-10 times; 8 percent, 11 or more times
Did you receive a copy of the final recommendations that were forwarded from your area to the next higher level? 60 percent, yes; 38 percent no.
Did you have access to the strategic plans of your RC/department? 79 percent, yes; 19 percent, no
How would you rate the overall effectiveness of the planning and budgeting process in your unit? 21 percent, highly effective; 48 percent, effective; 19 percent, ineffective; 8 percent, highly ineffective
How satisfied are you that you had adequate data/information to make informed recommendations? 42 percent, considerably satisfied; 27 percent, moderately satisfied; 17 percent, somewhat dissatisfied; 12 percent, considerably dissatisfied.
The survey also allowed participants to comment on their answers. Senate President Robin Kear said after reading those comments, which were anonymized, she found about three units that seemed to be “doing it right,” where members felt the PBC had involvement in decision making.
But, she said, most of those commenting felt the PBCs work was “performative.” Comments included: “All of it was decided by someone else, before any meeting I was in,” and “We didn’t really discuss the budget beyond basic, high-level overviews.”
Kear pointed out that those being surveyed were involved in their PBCs before a memo from Provost Ann Cudd and Chief Financial Officer Hari Sastry came out last spring, at the Senate’s urging, about PBCs having more involvement in the budget and the new budget model. Kear stressed that units need to be held accountable for getting their PBCs involved.
Another stumbling block this year has been a decision by the administration in the fall to request that any members of the faculty union bargaining unit be excluded from the PBCs when the committees were discussing issues related to mandatory bargaining.
The provost sent out further guidance to deans this semester that revised this policy and said deans can share information and documentation relevant to the budget process with all members of the PBC. The memo said, “For example, you may share information about projected enrollment in a program or speak generally about hiring but you may not discuss specifics related to compensation or individual faculty members. That said, members of administration will not discuss issues that are mandatory subject of bargaining (i.e., wages, benefits, working conditions) with bargaining-unit faculty members.”
“So I’m saying all this to say that I hope this process is improving,” Kear said. “I’m going to ask more about the accountability piece from the provost to the deans related to the PBCs. But from what I saw in these comments, there are still many of these members who don’t feel like this has the impact that that I think it could.”
Juan Taboas, Budget Policies committee chair, said he’d still like to follow up on the idea of having a retreat with PBC members to discuss best practices and hopes to get information out on that in April or May.
Travel Advance policy
The committee also heard a briefing and voted on the proposed University Travel Cash Advances policy. Taboas said that since the policy deals with money, the administration was not comfortable presenting it to the committee with bargaining unit members present. Instead, Anthony Graham, a senior policy specialist in the Office of Policy Development and Management, briefed Taboas on the policy and he presented it to the committee.
This policy was previously part of FN 28 University Travel, Business Entertainment, Honoraria, and Miscellaneous Reimbursable Expenses policy. Keeping it separate will make it easier to update the cash advance policy without having to redo all of FN28, Taboas said.
“The second reason it’s being reviewed is it was confusing and unclear in some areas,” he said. “And now that we have the OneCard, some things have changed that needed to be updated in the policy.”
The main focus of the policy is how to handle cash advances for work-related trips to areas where you can’t use a credit card or OneCard. Tabaos said instead of seeking a direct cash advance from the University, you can use your OneCard like an ATM card to take out cash for your trip. There are no fees for using your OneCard this way.
The policy stipulates that, per IRS rules, if there is any unused cash not detailed in an expense report, then that money must be paid back to the University within 120 days or it will be considered income and have to be reported on your W-2.
Also, according to the draft policy, travel cash advance requests must be made on a OneCard change request form and be approved by the traveler’s supervisor. Find that form on the Purchase, Pay and Travel website.
The committee voted to approve the policy and send it on to Faculty Assembly.
Susan Jones is editor of the University Times. Reach her at suejones@pitt.edu or 724-244-4042.
Have a story idea or news to share? Share it with the University Times.