My earlier post, UPMC's "Essential Condition" On Pittsburgh Promise, can be found here. You might want to read it first.
This morning, prior to City Council's meeting on the UPMC Pittsburgh Promise tax credit bill, UPMC issued this additional statement:
“While we fully recognize and support the right and responsibility of City Council to deliberate on the resolution by the Mayor, we wish to clarify that these provisions are standard in all agreements with the City for PILOT payments, Pittsburgh Public Service Fund payments etc and are not unique to the Pittsburgh Promise. Language of this nature is routinely included by non-profits in all such agreements.
Moreover, the City does not necessarily give up future tax revenue in the unlikely event that it gets the right to tax nonprofits. The provisions provide that if the City collects tax revenues; UPMC’s voluntary financial commitment to the Pittsburgh Promise will be reduced proportionately. The City retains this choice.
We fully support the deliberations and given the magnitude of UPMC’s commitment of up to $100 million, public transparency and the involvement of City Council is desirable.”
The above version of the new UPMC statement is actually a revision; another version was e-mailed minutes earlier, but then a correction was sent out.
Below you'll find a screenshot comparing the two. The revised language is in boldface, the old language is crossed out. I'm providing this view of the both versions because comparing the two may provide more precise insight into UPMC's framing of the agreement submitted to City Council.
[Click to enlarge.]
.
Posts
3 comments:
I'll admit I am confused. I am really worried about what UPMC is *actually* giving the city, not about some hypotheitcal change in non-profit status at the state level. Is it the case that the $10 million gift to the Pittsburgh Promise cancels the five million (or whatever) given from UPMC to the city?
When I first tried to figure out what you were presenting, I thought, "UPMC accidentally crossed-out the text they meant to emphasize in boldface." That got me to thinking about Freudian keyboard slips and protesting too much.
In reality, try though I might to discover some sinister shift in meaning, I found only that the new grammar is slightly more flattering to themselves.
All this does is confirm to me that UPMC is behaving like they are ashamed on some level. Who else could donate $100 million to charity and muck it up so badly?
Don't you love Mr. Cindrich's comment, the they don't want to take a double hit. Since when is this sort of logic considered when providing a gift. I bet these guys give great Christmas gifts, "You gave me a 10 dollar tie so here is your 10 dollar tie. I dont want to take a hit from my gift."
By the way, next we will learn that we have to rename Pittsburgh and Monroeville to keep UPMC's "gifts".
Merry Christmas UPMCburg and Romoffville.
Post a Comment