She's likely not standing in the way of funding passing (i.e. not the swing vote as it failed by 6 votes), so she is likely playing politics in the legislature by aligning with the no vote political block. She may not vote no if her vote was the sole vote holding up the funding. Still, it is a bad look and should be looked at to be censured by Pitt's board.
It is true that state funding has dropped by a combination of Pitt's budget getting bigger (and there are many reasons for that, primarily greatly increased R&D expenditures) and the state failing to keep pace with CPI inflation, let alone higher education inflation. The primary expense at all universities is faculty and staff salaries and benefits (not administrative besides that popular narrative, although I don't disagree there has been a largely unnecessary proliferation of administrative positions). Unlike CPI inflation that measures the cost of widgets whose production can be outsourced to Mexico or Vietnam to keep labor and overall costs down, universities are intensive human service providers that can't be outsourced, and salaries and benefits have generally fallen quite a bit behind the private sector for such terminal degree expertise. Regardless, when adjusting for inflation, Pitt is now receiving less % support from the state then in some of the years BEFORE it became state related in 1966. Let that sink in.
Paco
Others in the thread state that she was appointed by the Legislature. That would seem to preclude recusal as it is nonsense.
It’s only 9 seats total out of about 38 total. They don’t have any actual power as a group since they make up less than 25% of the total board.
trustees.psu.edu
This money is earmarked for one purpose, to enable Pitt to charge lower tuition to in-state students. It does nothing for Pitt, and essentially is passed through to these students. So they are the ones who will be effected if this money disappears. Do those Republicans who oppose this funding want to explain to their constituents that they will have to pay higher tuition to go to Pitt? That is going to go over very well.
They already have to explain why their constituents have to pay higher tuition since Pitt refuses to hold it steady.
It goes over well at the faculty Christmas party. .....But really, I think Pitt is not a big part of the problem, for one Pitt draws a lot of Professional talent worthy of a decent wage. and secondly I don't think Pitt has a ton of mamby pamby programs /degrees in comparison to alot of other PA schools, but what do I know?
Any time you serve on a board, especially one like this, you are required to always act in the best interest of the organization because of your fiduciary responsibilities to the organization. If she is acting with any personal interests, like making sure her standing in a party gets her re-elected, it is a breach of that responsibility from the board's point of view. It's actually a pretty serious matter and if the other directors are doing their job, she should be required to explain her actions, in writing, or face penalties. And that is not to say that her reasons aren't justifiable although if she does have objections to a policy or a planned tuition increase, those should have been noted -- again, in writing -- to the board and placed in the record. I realize there are complexities to holding dual role's here because she also holds a responsibility to act in the best interest of her constituents but if there is truly a conflict, she should resign from the board.
When the legislature puts a person on the Board, a recusal for her political positions would be nonsense.
Just curious - are you versed in the legal requirements of a board member's fiduciary responsibilities? Because that appears to be the issue here. If she cannot meet that responsibility, due to her political position, she should resign from the board. That is the simple solution. She cannot have it both ways.
As an appointee by the legislature, her first responsibility is to the legislature. She represents their interests on the board,
Simple question. When a union member is appointed to a company's BOD, should he vote for employee pay cuts because it is in the best interests of the company?
I mentioned that in a prior post in this thread. The conflict of interest is actually by design in such a situation. All legislature appointed board members would have the same conflict. If they all recused themselves from fiscal decisions there is no point in having them.
Her goal seems to be exactly what you state her constituents want - lower tuition. Posters want to believe the only way that happens is for those same constituents to pay more in taxes so the state can fund the university. That is not the only way to reach that goal.
What do you not understand that her position on the board is to represent the people who appointed her?
Ok. Maybe we just see how to achieve this in different ways. Perhaps tuition in PA would be lower if PA supported public education at a higher rate than all but one state? Withholding funds earmarked to fund in-state tuition reductions doesn’t achieve this in my view. The thing in this case is I don’t believe for one minute that Mihalik was doing anything other than kissing the rear ends of the leadership in her party in Harrisburg. That clouds my view, admittedly.
Nope. The legislature's interest in having board members is to have oversight of funds once they are given.
Well, you might find out that you're being grossly undercompensated or that another company treats engineers like human beings. A CEO that is price fixing for, and collecting a paycheck from a customer is just fine so long as he doesn't draw too much attention to himself when he needs to dump his shares when he finds out that the customer won't be needing what you're selling them any longer.
If someone takes the republicans in the legislature at their word about this, then they should expect a visit from the Chief Wallet Inspector and be prepared to recite their social security number and the security code on the back of their credit cards.
Absolutely. She could be using her position on the board to find ways to make those dollars go further. That's why she's there.
Her role in the legislature is to her constituents. Her role when appointed to any body is to those who appointed her.
The same can be said for Dems and all other pols.
Brain drain is prevented by keeping graduates in the state with good jobs and good living conditions. PA taxes and regulations need to be changed to do that.
Your first statement is half right. The appointment is part of her duties to the state, also knows as the citizens. The overarching goal is to make sure public funds are spent correctly and that the university flourishes.
