Faculty senators delay action on administration censure

By SUE WUETCHER
Reporter Editor

After contentious debate—including impassioned pleas by several faculty members and a charge that the chair of the Faculty Senate was partly to blame for misinformation on the issue—the senate Tuesday returned to its Executive Committee for further refinement a proposal to censure the administration for its actions in folding the former Department of Statistics into the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine.

The body also postponed indefinitely action on an accompanying resolution in support of former statistics chair Irwin Guttman that labels "any and all aspersions" cast upon Guttman's tenure as chair as "an outrageous assault on the truth." Faculty members were hesitant to act on the resolution without hard evidence that aspersions were in fact cast upon Guttman.

The censure resolution, offered for a second reading by John Boot, professor of management science and systems, asks the senate to censure "the administration" for not following UB and SUNY procedures regarding the abolition of degree-granting programs, for its "brazen disregard" of faculty input via established faculty governance councils and for the "actual steps taken (dismantling of the statistics department), which will come to haunt us in the education of our students, in the advancement of the science of statistics, in competitiveness of our grant proposals across the spectrum of health sciences and core campus areas, and in our ability to meet the needs of New York State and wider constituencies for trained statisticians."

Nicolas Goodman, vice provost for undergraduate education and an admitted participant in the administration's actions regarding the statistics department, opened the debate by dissecting Boot's resolution paragraph by paragraph. He criticized Boot's timeline of the events, noting that the decision to temporarily suspend admissions to the department's programs was made in a letter from then-Provost Thomas E. Headrick dated Jan. 27, 1998, and not in 1995 as Boot contends.

He also pointed out that the doctoral program in statistics has not been deactivated, as Boot insists, an action that would require the approval of system administration.

Goodman directed his strongest comments toward the senate itself, noting that Chair Peter Nickerson received a copy of the Jan. 27 letter, as well copies of "all documents of consequence in the dossier."

In fact, he said, Nickerson was a member of the committee that was created to recommend a structure for statistics, aside from departmental status, and which discussed "a great many issues at great length.

"To say to me that we failed to inform or consult the senate is frankly ludicrous," he said. "I submit to you that part of what we're dealing with here is an internal dispute in the senate."

Nickerson participated in all of the committee's decisions regarding the statistics department, "but Peter didn't choose to share that information with you," Goodman told senators. "No doubt that was a grievous fault, but it's not a fault on the basis of which you ought to be censuring the administration."

Responding to Goodman's comments, Nickerson said that he viewed his service on the committee as that of a faculty member, not as the senate chair, although he acknowledged that his role on the committee was not clearly defined in the letter of appointment.

Many of the issues discussed were not "something for the senate to become involved with," he said, adding that he also did not seek senate advice due to the complexity of the issue.

"There is some blame on my part," he admitted, "but I'm not sure what I would have done differently."

Some senators speaking against the resolution objected to censuring the abstract "administration," as opposed to specific persons. Several specifically referred to a memo from Provost David Triggle to Nickerson in which Triggle stated that it is "totally inappropriate for 'the administration' to be collectively censured and that he hoped Boot would offer a new resolution "that names specific individuals that he deems worthy of censure."

Triggle also offered to discuss his role in the events, "absent a cloak of group identity."

Dennis Malone, SUNY Distinguished Service Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering called a collective censure "an absolutely silly thing to do."

But Don Schack, professor of mathematics, disagreed, describing the administration as "a well-defined entity," like "the faculty." While individual administrators and the responsibilities of specific offices may change over time, that "doesn't change the fact that the administration is responsible for the major decisions governing the university. It is appropriate to cite the administration," he said, calling Triggle's memo "specious" and "not of use as a serious basis for any action that we take."

President William R. Greiner said he was offended by talk that the university was censuring ideas, and that any request by Triggle could be considered as "specious."

Greiner told senators that if they did not want to name specific individuals to be censured they could name specific officers or offices. A collective censure "flies in the face of any notion of fairness and due process," he said, suggesting that the theme of the senate debate should be about "the senate's concern for process and collegiality."

For the senate to consider "fobbing aside" a direct request from one of its colleagues- Triggle-to address the body on the issue "I think would be a shameful thing to do and not in the best interest of the body and certainly not in its best traditions."

He volunteered to head the list of those to be censured, if senators insist on the censure resolution, and told senators they could add the names of Triggle and Headrick as well. "You'd better address that, and be willing to hear from David (Triggle) or else, frankly, this body will dishonor itself."