State Rep Natalie Mihalek, a Pitt grad and trustee from Upper S. Clair, was one of the 73 who voted against State funding for Pitt today. That would seem to disqualify her from serving on the Board, since Board members are bound to make decisions in the best interests of the University.
Pitt trustee votes against funding for Pitt
- Thread starter Franb
- Start date
Get her off the board. She’s an embarrassment.
You are assuming that state funding is in the best interest of Pitt. It very likely isn't.
Well yea, parties aside, if you vote against the best interest of her school, then she has to be removed. She has allegiance first to her conservative voters so I dont blame her but she has to be removed. Leave it to Pitt for putting someone like that on
Are you suggesting that accepting $166 million is not in Pitt's best interest? It certainly is in the best interests of the PA students, who are benefiting from the in-state tuition subsidy, which these funds provide.
I believe that those
I believe that the legislators on the Board are appointed by their party leadership, not Pitt.
Pennsylvania is one of the lowest states in funding higher education and that is why the State Related Universities tuitions are some of the highest in the entire country.
When Pitt became State Related in 1966 the state provided about 30% funding now it is about 9%.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
When Pitt became State Related in 1966 the state provided about 30% funding now it is about 9%.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Ok, that makes sense. Is it a certain number of Dems and Republicans? Also, why does PSU alums get to have an election for the top Paterno ball sniffers for a few seats?
ABSOLUTELY 💯 💯
It's possible that Pitt might be better off going private. It's better for the state to have Pitt a state school, but may not be better for Pitt as state funding dwindles.
I don't know where the math makes sense, but my guess is it's probably not too far away.
Is there precedent for a public school going private? I’ve seen it happen the other way around.
Note that Mihalek is one of 12 voting members (out of 36 total) who are appointed by the Commonwealth. The governor, house, and senate each appoint 4 trustees each. It looks like her term is up after this year.
I do not know if there are procedures for removing a Commonwealth Trustee from the board, but if there is such a mechanism I imagine it would be strongly considered.
Here's her contact page so you can let her know what you think: https://www.repmihalek.com/contact
Last edited:
Pitt isn't public. It is state-related. Privately governed, owned, and led. That said, there are many entanglements that would make it leaving the Commonwealth System of Higher Education difficult, as well as an act of the legislature to revise the university charter, and tuition would go way up for everyone, especially all in-state students.
Financially, it would be the equivalent to Pitt losing its entire endowment.
Last edited:
I know that Cornell was founded as a land-grant school. But it’s different in how it‘s funded. There’s this, from a Cornell-related website:
“Cornell is unique: Although it's an Ivy League university, chartered as a private institution, it includes undergraduate colleges and schools that receive some funding from New York State. They are sometimes called state contract colleges. The state subsidy results in lower tuition for students who have New York State residency and are enrolled in these colleges or schools. The state-assisted colleges and schools are:
- Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
- Cornell University College of Human Ecology
- Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations
- Cornell SC Johnson College of Business: Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management
- Cornell Jeb E. Brooks School of Public Policy
- Cornell University College of Architecture, Art, and Planning
- Cornell University College of Arts and Sciences
- Cornell University College of Engineering
- Cornell SC Johnson College of Business: Peter and Stephanie Nolan School of Hotel Administration.”
Paco, If Pitt is indeed privately governed, OWNED, and led, how can the legislature revise the charter of a private institution? Wouldn't that be similar to the state legislature having the ability to put a private company, say Google or Iron City Beer, out of business? Why does Pitt even need a Charter if its a private school. I assume Chatham and Carlow are private schools. Do they need and have charters from the state? I'm not advocating breaking from the state, just curious. BTW, when I went to Pitt back in the 70s my out of state tuition was $960 a year, double the in-state tuition of $480. Room and board were the same for all, as I remember.
I do think that if we were totally private the state would not have funded the significant portion of the Pete ($100 million or so???)
Perhaps the ambassador believes that state related and state subsidized universities are already charging too much for tuition….which they are. They need to tighten their budgets. I know we all love PITT but the tuition is ridiculous.
Pennsylvania is 49th in higher education funding, and Pitt receives less money than the state now than it did in 2009.
I don't really follow your line of thought here. How would reducing state funding help with this? Wouldn't it have the opposite impact?
And giving them less State funding means they will have to charge even higher tuition. How does that solve the problem?
You mean conservative voters who are against taxes unless it benefits them, right? My feeling is you are either progressive or regressive.
If PITT does not spend the state funding, they lose it. PSU and their 50 branch campuses are the worst offenders and have ruined it for the other “state” schools. Our commonwealth and country have created an “academic industry” that is poisoning higher education. This type of funding needs to be kept in check. Why is the state supporting branch campuses that are set up to generate funds for the “main” campus?
The appropriation that Pitt receives from the state goes exclusively to the in-state tuition discount. And even then, the money that Pitt gets from the state doesn’t fully cover the in-state discount; Pitt ends up covering the rest of the discount out of pocket.
I don't know, but at some point the math will stop working. They're already covering a chunk of instate tuition discounts themselves.
Instate tuition will rise, out of state might drop some, and the demographics will shift.
I'm not advocating it, but can see the numbers will eventually stop working and it won't be worth the bullshit to get the funding.
The state's control over Pitt is disproportionate to the level of funding Pitt receives. When Pitt went "state related" in 1967(?), the value of 50% of it's tuition income from PA to slash in-state tuition by over 80%. My tuition was slashed from over $4000 to $450. What Pitt receives now is far, far less than that percentage yet the state has the same control. It's time for Pitt to decline state funding and eliminate state representation and influence. Pitt has plenty of revenue streams and state funding is far less than 5% of Pitt's budget.
I don't know if it was on this site or somewhere else. But someone posted an article by the WVU Student Newspaper excoriating WVU for essentially a "money grab" by accepting students that probably have no business in a 4 year institution (should at least to a community college) and also provide fluff majors that have no value.
That isn't Pitt. But the constant increase of tuition and also expanding enrollment is also a money grab that has led to the current student debt crisis. Well that and obviously unscrupulous lending terms and institutions and the fact that now "college degree" is a requirement for some of the most menial jobs, and unfortunately advancement in companies.
Anyways, a bit off topic. But bringing it on topic, alot of this inflation and making college available and a requirement is fueled by public monies to them.
That isn't Pitt. But the constant increase of tuition and also expanding enrollment is also a money grab that has led to the current student debt crisis. Well that and obviously unscrupulous lending terms and institutions and the fact that now "college degree" is a requirement for some of the most menial jobs, and unfortunately advancement in companies.
Anyways, a bit off topic. But bringing it on topic, alot of this inflation and making college available and a requirement is fueled by public monies to them.
At the same time, though, what Paco said is important: 5% of Pitt’s budget is basically equivalent to the percentage of Pitt’s budget that’s derived from its annual endowment disbursements. It’s a small percentage, but it’s definitely not a small or unimportant number.
I agree that Pitt should be exploring everything it can to protect itself from a hostile and wholly unreasonable legislature. But that decision can’t be made without a way to draw that money from elsewhere.
Why does the Commonwealth appoint 1/3 of the Pitt BoT? Do they provide 1/3 of Pitt's funding?
Right. That’s why 11 of the 12 bipartisan trustees voted for it, and only one against. She’s obviously the only one who has it all figured out.
I’ve been told by another BOT member (who tells me they were shocked by this news) that she is generally the least likely state appointed member to cause problems. She is free to vote as she pleases in the legislature. However, the conflict that exists in this matter makes me think she should recuse herself in the matter or resign her position on the board if she feels compelled to vote this way. Pitt expends resources to lobby for this money. Time, energy and money. For her to vote no is a direct conflict with that effort. I don’t know where this ends, but I know she’s got other BOT members fired up.
Agree- recusing from voting is the right move - either for or against. I’m surprised that isn’t the mo to be honest . It’s clearly a conflict of interest.
Because at the time Pitt became a State Related University (1966) Pennsylvania contributed almost 30% of its funding. Therefore, the State felt it should have 1/3 (12 out of 36) control over the school.
Through the years as sate funding continued to decrease (now 9% or less state funding) they still maintained their 1/3 control of the school.
The State related Universities (Pitt, Penn State, Temple and Lincoln) should educate the public on how little the state contributes to higher education compared to others.
I believe only Vermont contributes less.
The State Legislature wants to blame Pitt for the high tuition but in reality it is the State itself that is responsible for the high tuition costs due to their lack of funding compared to all other states.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
She needs to be removed plain and simple. No defending or rationalizing her actions. Enough already
My 2-cents:
Pitt was once 100% private but was bailed out by the State when Chancellor Litchfield damaged Pitt economically in a well-intentioned effort to make Pitt the "Stanford of the EAST." From Wikkipedia:
Edward Harold Litchfield (April 14, 1914 – March 8, 1968) was an American educator and the twelfth Chancellor (1956–1965) of the University of Pittsburgh. He is best known for a major expansion of the university, but also a failure to raise sufficient capital to fund such growth, eventually leading to his resignation in July 1965.
As noted, State funding has slipped to 9% from 30% of Pitt's budget. If the slippage continues there will probably be a state support percentage reached where remaining "state related" will no longer make much, if any, economic sense.
I would note that the decrease in state support as a percentage is probably not solely due to the State reducing its funding in absolute dollar amounts; but, likely has a Pitt increasing its self-supporting income component as well--especially since the cost of attending all colleges and universities has grown for decades at a rate well in excess of the growth in the overall cost of living.
Crazy Paco's take on the funding issue would be interesting---I added this before Paco posted.
Last edited:
Charters for academic institutions from ruling authorities go back hundreds and hundreds of years in Europe as they designated these institutions some autonomy to operate. Universities, for instance, would have their own internal laws, law enforcement, even jails.
Take the University of Pennsylvania. Its progenitor received its charter in colonial days from the Penn family for an academy in 1753, with another in 1755 to add a college. Penn was granted a university charter from the state in 1779 with subsequent revisions by acts of the legislature.
For Pitt, the state charter, and revisions thereto, gave Pitt's trustees the authority to create, at different times 1) an academy in 1787, 2) a university in 1819 3) a change of name to "University of Pittsburgh" in 1908, 4) integrated into the Commonwealth System of Higher Education in 1966. Each of these took acts of the state legislature. There were other amendments and supplements to Pitt's charter, but those 4 are the biggest ones. The charter essentially gives the institution and board of trustees legal standing before the Commonwealth to conduct business, transactions, lawsuits, etc, and defines the rights and privileges and the institution’s functions, just as in more ancient days.
The 1966 charter revision incorporated Pitt into the created Commonwealth System of Higher Education (to which Penn State, Temple, and Lincoln also belong). Pitt's legal name was changed to the "University of Pittsburgh -- of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education." It exchanged financial support, originally ~1/3 of Pitt's overall budget, for 1/3 representation on its board of trustees and Pitt's agreement to provide tuition discounts for Commonwealth residents. It also made Pitt an "instrumentality of the state," which meant Pitt could issue its own tax-exempt bonds and the state could do things like enact eminent domain on its behalf. It gave the state's Department of General Services the ability to fund and manage construction projects on behalf of the university and then turn them over to the university (as was done most recently for the Pete, although GSA management of Pitt construction projects was also was done prior to Pitt becoming state-related but the state would usually hold the deed). It set up the non-preferred funding status for Pitt and the other 3 schools, which is why these universities are funded by separate appropriations outside (and after) the overall annual state budget (PASSHE schools are funded with the overall state budget).
Here's the current status of Pitt. 1) 2/3rds of its board of trustees are selected by the said board on its own terms. 1/3 are appointed by the state (per the 1966 charter). Therefore, it is effectively privately controlled and governed. 2) The officers of the university, including the chancellor, are selected and appointed by this privately controlled board. 3) No employees of the university are employees of the state or applicable for any state benefits, not even the PA State Employee Credit Union (PSECU). They are employees only of Pitt. 4) All assets of the university, include the university owned physical plant and endowment, are under control and managed by the board of trustees. It is not owned by the state. However, the state does maintain the deeds of several buildings that it constructed on behalf of the university, including Hillman Library and Crawford Hall, just to name a couple off the top of my head. In contrast, it transferred ownership of the Pete to Pitt after construction was finished.
Note that Temple and Lincoln are similarly construed in status and governance, while Penn State is not because of its much more public-like history dating back to it receiving land grant status. PSU, at times, has for much of its history been considered "public" because of its land grant status and has a much different board make up with various state appointees and appointees from different state organizations (elected from state agricultural and business societies) and alumni voting. Penn State's board does not have effective private control over its own board membership makeup, although neither does the state have full control; rather, control is more distributed between the state, the state ag and business societies, alumni, and the board. Also, PSU employees are eligible for some state benefits (including state employees retirement system and PSECU membership). So it is much more of a public university, including historical alignment with the state.
However, all four schools in the system are referred to the state as "state-related" universities, despite any differences in governance at the institutions. It is a hybrid system, and unique in this particular way it is construed in the US. Because they are not state owned and controlled institutions is why they are excluded from the public open records laws, a huge advantage over competitive public peers in retaining faculty and none of the schools have any interest in giving up this exclusion. But all these schools will decribe themselves as either public or private depending on how falling on that line will serve there own particular interests on any issue.
These 4 schools, despite not being truly public, obviously have characteristics of being both private and public. The most striking public characteristic is that they offer discounted tuition to residents of the Commonwealth. That is why you see them listed as "public" universities in most third party publications like US News, etc, even though it doesn't necessarily truly represent the status of the institutions. These publications get the status from either the government IPEDS data or the Carnegie classifications. There are only two categorization buckets to choose from on these lists: public or private. Because these schools have "in-state" tuition discounts, they all get dropped in the public bucket and that is why you always see them listed as "publics" in such publications. Really they should be in a hybrid third bucket, but even within this same hybrid system, PSU is pretty different than the others.
Last edited:
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
OT: Tomlin extension not going over to well with local media:- Latest: Charlotteyinzer96
