FSEC takes aim at target date for decision on arts/sciences

Some senators, including members of the senate's Governance Committee, objected to President William R. Greiner making a final decision on the reorganization of the arts and sciences during the summer, when many faculty are away from campus.

But others said they thought the timetable outlined by Provost Thomas Headrick has given faculty ample time to provide input on the issue.

In his report to the FSEC, Senate Chair Claude Welch, SUNY Distinguished Service Professor in the Department of Political Science, said he was "bothered" by Headrick's timetable, which the provost had outlined in an April 14 memorandum to the university community.

The provost's memorandum, which is published as an insert in today's issue of the Reporter, details the membership of, and charge to, the hearing panel that Headrick has established to collect evidence and provide an analysis of the two options on the table to reorganize the arts and sciences. In the memorandum, Headrick gives a target date of June 20 for a report from the hearing panel, with a final decision to be made by Greiner in July.

"Having the president issue a decision in July, at a time historically when faculty participation is lower and student awareness nil, seems to potentially encourage this notion that this is a tough decision that people won't like, therefore we'll make it in the summer," Welch said.

"There's no question that the president and provost have been very open in their desire to recreate the College of Arts and Sciences," he said. "They feel strongly that this is the correct academic option for this institution. I feel potentially it may be, but I'd like to at least have more discussion on this because my mind is open," he said. "To do it, the senate must be involved."

Welch noted that Headrick's memorandum to the university community indicates that the hearing panel's report will be subject "only to comment and advice from only the (senate's) Academic Planning Committee and the Faculty Senate Executive Committee."

This "falls way short of the senate's responsibility," he said, noting that the senate's charter empowers the body "to review, prior to adoption, all formal plans relating to the future of the university and all proposals regarding the formation, reorganization or dissolution of academic units."

Welch said that when he raised

the issue with the provost, Headrick replied that he was recognizing that the senate customarily does not meet during the summer.

Welch said that if the administration "persists on this particular timetable," he feels that a special meeting of the Faculty Senate should be held during the summer.

"I really feel very strongly about the important role that we as a total body ought to be playing and the way in which our colleagues need to be informed, not only by the hearing panel, but in terms of serious, significant discussions within our respective faculties and schools," Welch said.

Jack Meacham, professor of psychology, said he does not feel that he has "been had, in terms of process."

The senate has had "fair warning" since February that numerous changes were contemplated, Meacham said, adding that the planning document is being reviewed by a variety of senate committees.

"It seems to me that we are being faithful to our responsibilities under the charter," he said.

Boris Albini, professor of microbiology and chair of the Governance Committee, said the planning document is "not easily grasped" and the senate needs more time to digest it.

"I don't understand completely why it's necessary to have a deadline that is at least suspect, being in the middle of the summer, and cutting thus not only our (senate) work short, but also the work of the (hearing) panel.

"All voices should be heard," he said. "It's better to try to lead by recruiting people's support than by instituting something where a majority or large portion of people may be against it."

Stanley Bruckenstein, A. Conger Goodyear Professor of Chemistry, told Welch he agreed with his "gentle assessment" of the situation. But holding an extra meeting of the full senate devoted to general discussion of the issue would be fruitless, he said.

The meeting should address the specific

issue-should a College of Arts and Sciences be formed-and then a referendum should be held, he said.

Peter Nickerson, professor of pathology who will be the new senate chair effective July 1, noted that the senate needs to bring the issue to "closure."

There already has been considerable input on the issue, and conclusions will be drawn from that input, both from the hearing panel and from the various senate committees, Nickerson said.

"There has to, then, be some kind of closure; reaction to those (conclusions); that's what we're not going to have under the present plan (timetable)," he said.

Dennis Malone, SUNY Distinguished Service Professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and chair of the senate's Academic Planning Committee, said the members of his committee have a problem with the hearing panel "identifying the preferred course" for the reorganization of the arts and sciences.

"I find that to be the sore point in the document (charging the hearing panel)," Malone said. "It puts much too much responsibility on a very small and generally ad hoc-created committee. That preferred course is the responsibility of the senate to at least state its opinion."

Albini presented senators with two draft resolutions from the Governance Committee for their consideration.

The first resolution urged that a final decision on the reorganization of the arts and sciences not be made before Oct. 1 to allow more discussion of the issue.

The second resolution urged the units involved in a reorganization-the faculties of Social Sciences, Natural Sciences and Mathematics and Arts and Letters and the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences-to perform a "careful and thorough analysis of the possible consequences, positive and negative, of such an action."

"This would make it possible for these faculties to come together and come up with a more structured response to the provost's proposal," Albini said. "I think it would be useful to have assurance that most of the faculty have the opportunity to say something" in a collective form, he said.

Malone said that Headrick has known all along that the faculty's automatic reaction to his timetable would be "let's take longer to discuss this."

Headrick has considered this and decided that a decision needs to be made by July, Malone added.

"So other than endorsing the fact that it would be nice if we went more slowly, I'm not sure that this (resolution) is something that the provost and president could, in fact, accept."

He suggested that opposition to the timetable be presented in the form of "advice and comment" to the provost, rather than as a resolution.

Meacham said that when he examines

his own behavior, "I've come to realize over the years it makes no difference if I've been given three months to write that chapterÉdespite my best efforts, it always gets written in the last two weeks.

"I think my faculty colleagues will give the same amount of effort to thinking about the proposal and discussing it, whether the deadline is two weeks from now or whether the deadline is Oct. 1," he said.

"We've had, I think, a very open process over the last four or five months. People on our campus who wanted an opportunity to have input have had that opportunity. I say let's make the decisions, regardless of how they fall, and move on with other more important matters that we have to deal with."

The FSEC took no action on the resolutions offered by the Governance Committee.

In other business, Michael Metzger, professor of modern languages and literatures and chair of the senate's Educational Programs and Policies Committee, presented a draft resolution on the coursework of undergraduate transfer students.

Metzger said his committee had been charged by FSEC with examining the policy that regulates course credit for transfer students because of anecdotal evidence that students had been given "short shrift" in transferring courses or were bringing large numbers of transfer courses that gave the major departments "a relatively small role in completing their education at UB."

The resolution tries to fulfill two func-

tions, Metzger said: to recognize previous work done by transfer students and give UB a curricular role in the student's degree program.

It proposes that students apply courses that they have completed at other schools toward at least one-third of the program's graduation requirements.

Senators debated the language used in the resolution.

Michael Frisch questioned the phrase "at least one-third," wondering "what if it's less than one-third?"

"Up to one-third is not the same as at least one-third," he said.

Nicolas Goodman, vice provost for undergraduate education, said the intent of the policy is that UB can accept one-third of a student's major requirements from another school or schools, but at least one-third of the requirements must come from UB.

Bruckenstein suggested the language be changed to state that students can apply courses taken at other institutions to "at least one-third but no more than two-thirds" of their major program's graduation requirements.

The resolution, with revisions, will be presented to the full senate for discussion at its meeting on April 29.