Law Clinic back in business

It looks as though the Environmental Law Clinic will have a roof over its head, without… It looks as though the Environmental Law Clinic will have a roof over its head, without overhead in its budget.

In a statement released March 14, law school dean David Herring announced that the school’s faculty and administration reached a solution concerning the clinic. Herring stated that the Environmental Law Clinic could continue to operate without fear of bankruptcy, and the University would still be able to adhere to the stipulations set forth by state legislators in Pitt’s appropriations bill.

Tom Buchele, head of the clinic, said that while the clinic will still be required to pay overhead, it will not have that money taken from its annual budget, an outcome that seemed inevitable after the state’s decision. University spokesman Robert Hill said that the law school will provide assistance with the cost of the overhead.

The statement from Herring says that after discussions, the faculty and administration reached two conclusions:

“[T]he existing structure and staffing of the Clinic and its integral relationship to our curriculum and the School’s program in environmental studies should remain as it has been from the Clinic’s inception; and

“[T]he School should, and indeed has, identified sources of private funding for the full direct and indirect costs of the clinic’s operations that do not rely on appropriations voted by the Pennsylvania legislature.”

Hill said that Herring did not disclose the sources of the funding. The Heinz Foundation reportedly provided a $2 million endowment to the clinic, out of which the approximately $100,000 annual budget is taken.

The clinic’s troubles began in January 2001 after its decision to represent Citizens Against New Toll Roads, a community group opposing the construction of the Mon-Fayette Expressway. In June, state legislators added a clause to Pitt’s appropriation bill in the annual state budget declaring that no state funds could be used toward the clinic.

As a result, the University began to charge the clinic $62,599 in overhead beginning in October. Buchele said that if it were forced to pay that amount, the clinic would be bankrupt within a year and a half. He also mentioned that since overhead costs are based on the annual budget, the figure of $62,599 could, and probably would, fluctuate.

On Jan. 28, the Tenure and Academic Freedom Committee of the University Senate released a six-page report with the results of an investigation “on the various issues of academic freedom related to the status, operation and funding” of the clinic. The report said that the University had violated the freedom of the clinic. After the report was released, Hill said, “The report is inaccurate, incomplete and we disagree with its conclusions.”

The Faculty Assembly discussed the matter in a meeting on Jan. 29, and the issue remained quiet until the release of Herring’s statement.

“This was the culmination of the discussions within the law school and the law faculty to ensure the fiscal and educational viability of the Environmental Law Clinic while the University complies with the provisions of the law,” Hill said.

Herring took pains in his statement to emphasize that the provisions state legislators included in the appropriations bill would be adhered to. Hill said that as of Monday night he had not spoken to legislators in Harrisburg to find their reactions to the decision.

“We will always defend the right of the faculty of the University,” Hill said.

Buchele hopes the faculty’s decision signifies the end of the debate.

“I was told [by Herring] that the University would defend the clinic in Harrisburg,” Buchele said.