HARRISBURG, Pa. — Pitt students and faculty traveled to Harrisburg to represent the University… HARRISBURG, Pa. — Pitt students and faculty traveled to Harrisburg to represent the University and speak out against Gov. Tom Corbett’s proposed budget cuts Tuesday in efforts to keep state appropriations up and tuition down.

But the driving force behind the 119 percent increase in Pitt’s tuition between 2000 and 2010 remains a source of contention between legislators and the state-related universities that are potentially facing a 30 percent state funding cut if the proposed budget goes through.

“That tuition increase can’t be blamed on the state,” said state Sen. Bob Mensch, the Republican representing parts of Bucks, Lehigh, Montgomery and Northampton counties and a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

But Chancellor Mark Nordenberg countered Mensch’s argument at Pitt Day in Harrisburg.

“There is an assertion made that there is no association with levels of tuition and levels of state appropriation. That is demonstratively untrue,” Nordenberg said. “Tuition increase can be attributed almost exclusively to state appropriations.”

Nordenberg, along with 150 Pitt students, alumni and faculty, petitioned legislators to stop the proposed 30 percent cut to the University’s funding, which would mark two back-to-back years of cuts. Though tuition will likely go up regardless, Pitt students would see a smaller increase with more state funding.

Majority Republican lawmakers like Mensch argue that a tight budget and ever-increasing tutition will keep the state from maintaining Pitt’s current level of funding.

Pitt’s tuition rose from $6,422 per year for in-state Arts and Sciences students in 2000-2001 to $13,344 per year in 2009-2010.

In the 2001-2002 schoolyear, the state appropriated the University $173 million. The state’s appropriation declined for two years to $163 million for 2003-2004. State funding increased during the 2004-2005 schoolyear to $168 million before falling again the following year to $157 million. The appropriation stayed at relatively consistent levels for the next five years, until last year, when the state appropriated $136 million to the University.

But not all Republican lawmakers are on the same page. Sen. Jake Corman, a Republican representing Perry and Juniata and parts of Mifflin, Centre and Union counties and the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, acknowledged the contributions that the state-related universities — Lincoln, Temple, Penn State and Pitt — make to their respective towns.

But the state is dealing with a budget, and the universities might not be the top priority for many legislators.

“It is a budget of difficult decisions. It becomes a priority game,” Corman said. “How you are going to get university funding is making it a major priority for all members of the legislature.”

Corman, whose district includes Penn State’s main campus, said that his top priority is having a balanced budget that is done on time. He added that he would not increase taxes, but he does not approve of Corbett’s proposed cut to higher education.

Sen. Andrew Dinniman, a Democrat representing Montgomery and Chester counties and the leading Democrat on the Education Committee, agreed with his Republican counterparts that the University has an “equal responsibility” when it comes to keeping tuition low.

“The funding of higher education and keeping it within means that people can afford is a two-way street,” he said, referring to the University and the state. “Someone’s going to pay, and it’s going to be the students and their families.”

To reduce the costs imposed on families, Dinniman proposed that the legislature consider closing the “Delaware loophole,” through which companies establish Delaware residences to avoid Pennsylvania’s 9.99 percent corporate income tax.

He also proposed raising the severance tax, a tax on non-renewable resources such as natural gas. He was not in favor of an increase in income tax or imposing new taxes.

Rep. Scott Conklin, D-Centre, who is on the appropriations and education committees, agreed with Dinniman about closing the Delaware loophole.

He said that his first priority is restoring education funding and that a failure to do so will have repercussions for the University.

“Pitt competes in a world market. Pitt can compete on world market with lower funding, but students’ tuition will go up dramatically,” Conklin said. “Every university needs to make a decision. Are they willing to cut back or do they want to compete?”

He said that Pitt’s primary competition comes from private institutions and that Pitt’s tuition is about one-third the cost of a private university.

Carnegie Mellon University, a private institution, set its tuition in 2011 for incoming undergraduates at $41,500. In contrast, Pitt’s tuition during this same period was $14,076.

Nordenberg and Pitt’s Vice Chancellor for Governmental Relations Paul Supowitz both said that the University wants to remain a public institution as it has been since 1966.

“We are fighting as hard as we can to remain a public university,” Supowitz said. “Ultimately, the state will make that decision.”

Nordenberg answered Conklin’s rhetorical question about the University and the market in which it wants to compete.

“The key to our success is maintaining a high level of quality,” Nordenberg said. “We don’t want to increase tuition. At the same time, we don’t want to sacrifice quality.”