By preventing the board from accessing the funds? Not in the least.
Pitt trustee votes against funding for Pitt
- Thread starter Franb
- Start date
burden of proof is on you senator, I don't have the time. You're the one claiming to know the role of the state legislature on a University BOT.
And if a kid goes to Michigan instead of Pitt due to cost, chances are she will get a job in Detroit rather than Philadelphia after graduation
Last edited:
We agree on your first paragraph.
So there were no non-college workers before universities grew into the numbers that exist today. That would be news to me. Regardless of that point, people will still go to college even without state funding.
By using the funds as leverage to hold the school admin's feet to the fire on tuition. How many times need I say this?
Tough luck, senor. I aint's doing any more research on this topic, which has no importance to me.
Huh. I went to Pitt and never worked in PA after that. Nobody chooses to work in Detroit.
thank you for admitting it was your opinion and not based on fact. It obviously has some importance to you given the number of times you have posted in this thread
That’s absolutely, 100% not why they’re doing it lol, I know you’re smarter than this.
And breaking her fiduciary responsibility to the board and the school for whose interests she is legally obligated to protect. She is obligated to explain that action. How many times do I have to say that?
If you want to be hyperbolic about it, sure. But making the universities less affordable wouldn't be in the interest of her constituents either so that sort of goes back around to, why the heck is she really doing this?
Last edited:
In this case, every vote against Pitt's funding is from Republicans. That is a fact, not an opinion.
PA state law requires 12 Board members to be appointed by the state to represent the interests of the state in return for state funding. They are specifically there to oversee the board from the state and to ensure the state subsidy is not misused. 4 are appointed by the governor, 4 by the state Senate leadership, and 4 by the state house leadership. Pitt appoints and elects its own Board members to represent the interests of the University. I'm not sure how this would even be debatable? This is not a corporate board of directors.
Of course its my opinion. I never stated otherwise. However, no one has proved it wrong.
What is important to me is that posters disparage other people based on disinformation.
Except that is the stated reason. From MSN:
"Cutler and other Republicans indicated Thursday that they continued to harbor the same concerns they did last week, namely that the universities – save Lincoln – had not guaranteed they wouldn’t raise tuition and that the schools were not subject to the state’s right-to-know law and had limited financial reporting rules, despite accepting taxpayer dollars.
“It should absolutely be about student opportunity, not institutional entitlement,” Cutler said, adding that Republicans and Democrats need to come together to “have a real discussion about tuition freezes, right-to-know law applications and other reforms” before the funding is re-considered again."
No Board document requires any trustee to agree to funding. Nor is there a legal obligation to protect the school's interests by doing so. In fact, she (and others) may believe that the best interests of the school are served by alternative actions.
I showed the stated reason. Just because you don't choose to believe it doesn't make it less true.
I’m very aware of what their stated “reason” is for voting against the appropriation.
One thing is clear and I think most, maybe even our friend in North Carolina, can agree on this. Joan Gabel has her work cut out for her. Between state funding , potential staff unionization, conference realignment and the overarching changes in academics, she’s likely in for a wild ride. I hope she’s up to the challenge. Tough gig.
She certainly does. The list of challenges goes on longer than yours.
Ensure the state subsidy is not misused and voting against is kind of two different things
based on your handle and previous posts, it appears you don't even live in PA. So why are you getting your panties in a bunch about something that has no impact on you?
I'm just stating why she is on the board and whos interests she is representing. I have no clue why she did what she did and don't really care. The funding will come eventually no matter what.
You are trying to talk sense into someone who voted for a 1 semester college drop-out (of a fake college) for the House of Representatives. There probably isnt a more hardcore Republican cultist than this guy. Republicans do no wrong. A Republican could vote to shut the University of Pittsburgh down and he would applaud the move as a great money-saving effort.
As opposed to you, who is a Democrat cultists who acts and thinks the same about the Democrats as the Republican cultists you are vilifying. Here is an idea, don't be in a cult or an extremists on either side.
This might be totally naive, but would Pitt be able to *donate* to enough state legislators that they hold up Penn State funding unless Penn State supports letting Pitt in the Big10?
Center-left, dude. I would vote for Christie over Biden. Would also vote for guys like Romney, Kasich, Hogan, etc if they ran. NCPitt is a cartoon character. He literally only posts on this board when he gets the alert that someone is criticizing a Republican or conservative ideal. He is pathetic.
If she is a good student she can get a job wherever she wants. If she goes to school at Michigan versus Pitt because of a new rock climbing wall at the gym (despite the increased cost) all the power to her.
Have you guys noticed the amenities being built at Universities? Why should the taxpayers foot that bill? It is at the point now that a typical college student will live the high life in a college dorm for four (or five) years and then live in a shitty apartment for a decade or two there after paying off student loans. Enough is enough.
There needs to be a discussion about increasing state funding in order to keep tuition from increasing.
Lets not let the facts get in the way of a discussion.
Pennsylvania is the lowest of all states in providing funding for higher education which results in Pitt having the highest tuition for a state school in the nation.
Pennsylvania does not support higher education funding to the extent that ALL other states in the nation support their respective state schools.
Last in funding for higher education in the nation translates to highest tuition in the nation for a state school.
Not hard to figure out.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
I really fail to see how an absence of accountability is okay. You're not alone in this but too often, people have this single-minded vision of right and wrong that doesn't mind at all if someone is acting inappropriately so long as it serves some end that you agree with. It's definitely okay to have a strong opinion about something but good governance has to do with protecting the integrity of the position someone holds. Often, it means explaining your actions, on the record, so that there is transparency and a broadly held understanding of why you're doing something and being held accountable to that standard is not a very high bar for either elected officials or people who serve public trusts. And yes, there are laws that address these notions. So no, you can't serve two bodies (a board and an group of citizens), act against both of their greater interests, and expect that you should be able to do this without any scrutiny. Doesn't matter what the issue is, either. It's just dishonest.
I could care less what his party is or his beliefs. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It has everything to do with how people in positions of authority should be expected to behave.
Nah. I post when people are factually wrong. Most often, those posters are liberal ... or you.
Pitt is not a state school. PA is also not the worst state in funding education. This is an example of the ignorance of which I speak.
true, but being in the bottom 5 is nothing to brag about (see, I provide links to combat ignorance)
States Investing the Most in Higher Education - HeyTutor
Down 11% Since the Great Recession, Investment in Higher Education Reveals Big Differences Among States.
heytutor.com
In higher education funding per FTE student in 2021, out of the 50 states plus DC and Puerto Rico, PA ranked 48th.
PA is dead last to funding of public (or state-related or other hybrid) research universities.
Btw, you talk about my vote like it is an insult. I couldn't care less about a candidate's education. I would vote for a 6th-grade dropout if he had the right principles of governance.
Of course, she should be accountable. Just like everyone on the Board and the government.
Your conclusion that her vote was not good governance and that she acted against both their interests are where we differ. I believe that her vote could have been in the best interests of both.
Depends on your ranking criteria. Using public operating % of state support, Pitt ranks at 26th.true, but being in the bottom 5 is nothing to brag about (see, I provide links to combat ignorance)
States Investing the Most in Higher Education - HeyTutor
Down 11% Since the Great Recession, Investment in Higher Education Reveals Big Differences Among States.
I don't understand how you can logically reach any other conclusion. You're literally making an argument that by ignoring the interests of both entities, she is acting in their interests.
